directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Karasulu <>
Subject Re: Sum-up: Versioning Scheme
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:58:12 GMT
Trustin Lee wrote:
> Hi all,
> The previous thread on versioning scheme is becoming very long, so I 
> want to
> split it into two by summarizing what we agreed on.  Alex summarized our
> current versioning scheme here:
> I agree with his idea mostly, but there are two points to raise:
> 1. 1.5 -> 2.0 vs 1.9 -> 2.0 vs 2.1 -> 2.2
> 1.5 is a very arbitrary number and this rule cannot be applied to the 
> future
> similar changes.  What happens if we move to Java 6?  What happens we
> already released 1.7 and if we move to Java 7?  1.9 has also a similar
> problem; what happens if we already released 1.8?  There's no way to
> distinguish from previous releases because we are out of bullet.

Please don't put too much emphasis on the 1.0 -> 1.5 move as something 
cute to mean that we went to JDK 5.0.  We could have just picked 1.3 or 

The key point was we do not want to go to 1.1 because we're changing a lot.

> 2.1 -> 2.2 also has a problem that 2.0 will never be released, which is 
> kind
> of weird.  Releasing 2.0-M1/2/3/4...and then RC1/2/3... and finally 2.0 can
> be a solution, but it makes the even/odd scheme pointless because we can
> just use 'M{number}' to state that it's unstable.  Of course, we can start
> over with this whole new scheme.
> 2. Clarify the meaning of minor version number.
> 'may or may not' sounds very ambiguous.  We need to clarify it.

You mean in my description of it on the cwiki?

> We can just go 1.5 or 1.9 not settling down the version numbering scheme,
> but we will encounter the same problem on and on.  I'm not a perfectionist,
> but I want to set up a nice rule that can be applied for as many cases 
> as we
> can cover.  Now the thread is hot, it's a great time to gather all opinions
> and to improve our version numbering scheme.

I have to agree with Peter that this thread is in danger of turning into 
a bike shed argument.


View raw message